ISO 22301 §6.1 · ISO 31000

Risk register with polymorphic targets

Risks attach to what they actually affect — process, vendor, application, location, or the organisation. Inherent + residual scoring. Reusable scenario library shared with the exercise programme. Critical-asset linkage. KRI tracking.

Target types
5
Treatment types
4
Scoring
I+R
Scenarios
Library
Key features

Risk that maps to what it actually affects

Polymorphic risk targets

A SAN-failure risk targets a location · a vendor-outage risk targets a vendor · a regulatory-breach risk targets a process. Each renders contextually with the right cross-links.

  • 5 target types
  • CHECK-enforced FK integrity
  • Contextual UI

Inherent + residual scoring

Each risk carries inherent and residual likelihood × impact (1-5). The treatments register tracks what moved the residual. The heatmap shows both side-by-side — auditors see the gap between gross and net.

  • Heatmap visual
  • Auditor-friendly diff
  • Treatment effectiveness

Reusable scenario library

Scenarios = risk archetypes. 'Ransomware on Core Banking' · 'SAN failure DC1' · 'Critical-vendor SWIFT outage'. Risks reference scenarios. Exercise programmes use scenarios. One source of truth across modules.

  • Cross-module reuse
  • Coverage tags
  • ISO 22398 alignment

Critical assets register

Information assets, infrastructure, key staff. Each linked to risks via critical_asset_risk_links. The asset-centric view answers 'what risks does my Core Banking system carry?'

  • Asset-centric pivot
  • Risk linkage
  • Inventory + value

Treatments with RACI

Each treatment has type (accept · transfer · mitigate · avoid), owner, due date, status, verification. Linked to the risk it addresses; the verified_at timestamp is the audit-evidence anchor.

  • 4 treatment types
  • Verification capture
  • RACI per treatment

KRI tracking

Top-N risks by residual · risks by category · treatments overdue · scenario coverage across the exercise programme. Rolls up to the cross-module reporting dashboard.

  • Top-N dashboard
  • Trend over time
  • Reporting rollup
What we capture

Risks. Treatments.

A register that earns its keep records each risk with both its 'gross' and 'net' position, and each treatment with the verification that closes the loop. Here's what BCMStack records for each, in plain terms.

For each risk

  • Risk code & title

    Human-readable identifier (RISK-CYBER-001) plus a one-line title — the same handle you'd use in a steering committee paper.

  • Category

    Operational · Technological · Regulatory · Reputational · Strategic · Environmental. Lets the register slice by family for committee reporting.

  • Target asset

    Every risk attaches to something concrete — a process, vendor, application, location or the organisation as a whole. No abstract orphan risks floating in the register.

  • Inherent rating

    Likelihood × Impact (1–5 each) before any treatment. The 'gross' position auditors need to see.

  • Residual rating

    Likelihood × Impact (1–5 each) after planned/implemented treatments. The 'net' position management lives with. Difference between the two quantifies treatment value.

  • Scenario link

    Optional link to a reusable scenario archetype — the connective tissue between the risk register and the exercise programme.

  • Accountable owner

    One named owner per risk. Not a team mailbox. Re-assignments are recorded.

Example

RISK-CYBER-001 — Ransomware on payments stack

Category:
Technological
Target:
Cardholder payment processing (process)
Inherent:
Likelihood 4 × Impact 5 (Very High)
Residual:
Likelihood 2 × Impact 4 (Medium)
Owner:
Head of Information Security
Linked scenario:
SC-CYBER-RANSOM-01

For each treatment

  • Treatment type

    Accept · Transfer · Mitigate · Avoid. The four ISO 31000 options, recorded explicitly so reviewers see the rationale, not just the activity.

  • Description

    What the treatment actually does — written so a reviewer can connect the action to the risk it's addressing.

  • Lifecycle status

    Planned → In progress → Implemented → Verified. Verification is its own state because 'implemented' is not the same as 'works'.

  • Treatment owner

    Often differs from the risk owner — engineering may own a control while risk-management owns the position. Both named, both accountable.

  • Due date

    Target completion. Overdue treatments roll up automatically into the BCM steering committee dashboard.

  • Verification record

    When effectiveness was confirmed and by whom. The evidence the residual rating is defensible.

Example

Mitigate · 'Immutable backup tier'

Type:
Mitigate
Status:
Implemented · awaiting verification
Treatment owner:
Head of Platform Engineering
Due:
2026-06-30
Verification:
Pending Q2 DR test
Clause coverage

ISO 22301 + ISO 31000 alignment

ClauseWhat it asks forBCMStack surface
§6.1Risks and opportunities — formal registerrisks table with polymorphic targets
§6.1.2Risk treatment optionsrisk_treatments — 4 treatment types
ISO 31000Risk-management process alignmentInherent + residual scoring; full risk lifecycle
§8.2Risk feeds into BIAscenario_bia_process_links — risks attached to BIA processes
§8.3Strategies derived from risk treatmentsTreatments inform BCP plan strategy types
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What are polymorphic risk targets?

+

Most risk registers force you to pick one 'attached to' field — usually a process. BCMStack's risks table has a polymorphic target_type + target_id that can point to a process, vendor, application, location, or the organisation as a whole. A SAN-failure risk targets a location; a third-party-outage risk targets a vendor; a regulatory-breach risk targets a process. Each renders contextually.

How are inherent and residual scores tracked?

+

Each risk has inherent_likelihood, inherent_impact, residual_likelihood, residual_impact (each 1-5) plus the calculated inherent_score and residual_score. The treatments table tracks what's been done to move from inherent to residual. The heatmap renders both — auditors can see the gap between gross and net.

How does the scenario library work?

+

Scenarios are reusable risk archetypes — 'Ransomware on Core Banking', 'SAN failure DC1', 'Critical-vendor SWIFT outage'. Each scenario carries typical_likelihood, typical_impact, scenario_type, coverage_tags. Risks reference scenarios. Exercise programmes also use scenarios. One source of truth across modules.

What KRIs / KPIs does the module track?

+

Top-N risks by residual score · risks by category · treatments overdue · risks past target review date · scenario coverage across the exercise programme. The reporting dashboard rolls these up across the organisation; the risk module's own dashboard shows them per-tenant.

See the Risk module in 20 minutes

We'll walk you through risk register, polymorphic targets, scenario library, and the cross-module rollup against a representative SAMA dataset.

Book a 20-minute demo

See the full BCM lifecycle — explore BIA, BCP, Exercises, Crisis, Risk and Reporting.